US acceptance of evolution holds steady overall, drops among Republicans

One-third of US doesn't accept one of the unifying principles of biology.

Yesterday, Pew Research Center released the results of a poll of US residents that asked about their acceptance of the theory of evolution. In keeping with past surveys, this one found that a completely uncontroversial idea within the scientific community—modern organisms are the result of evolution—is rejected by a third of the US public. While that fraction has held steady over time, the survey found that the political divide over evolution has grown over the past four years, with Republicans now even more likely to reject the idea than they were before.

In the poll, people were asked whether they thought that humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time, or if we and other creatures had evolved over time. To make sure that mentioning humans didn't make things overly personal, Pew also asked a subset of questions just about other animals; this didn't make any difference in responses.

Acceptance of evolution was higher in younger people and those who had graduated college, as had been found in previous polling. Among the 60 percent of Americans who do accept the theory, a bit over half ascribed it solely to natural causes—32 percent of the total. 25 percent of all adults believed in some form of theistic evolution, where a deity or deities guided the process, possibly in a way that's indistinguishable from the random mutations that have been observed. That figure's a bit higher in most religious groups, and a bit lower among the unaffiliated.

Evangelicals were the most likely to reject evolution (nearly two-thirds of them did), yet most of the 27 percent who did accept it thought it happened due to natural causes. This might be explained by the idea that rejection of evolution is a way for people to reinforce their cultural affinity with groups they feel will also reject evolution. If someone is already willing to forgo those cultural ties, then they may be more open to other ideas that are atypical of their cultural group.

As in previous polls, this one found a partisan divide on the issue, with Republicans far less likely to accept the idea than independents or Democrats. And, based on differences with a similar poll performed in 2009, it appears the partisan divide is growing larger. Evolution is accepted by about two-thirds of Democrats and independents, and those numbers have been roughly steady over the past four years, with all results falling within the poll's three percent margin of error. Among Republicans, however, acceptance has dropped from 54 percent to 43 percent in that short period of time.

There are several potential explanations for this, most centered around the GOP's internal debate regarding ideological purity. That debate could either cause committed members to feel the need to reinforce their cultural ties with other Republicans or drive away those who already differ from the average party member in some regard. Without further study, it's difficult to determine what's causing this shift.

32 percent of the total. 25 percent of all adults believed in some form of theistic evolution, where a deity or deities guided the process, possibly in a way that's indistinguishable from the random mutations that have been observed.

Intelligent randomness? Intelligent statistical noise? How does this even work?

Whilst I'm not surprised at how perception regarding cultural beliefs/stances can affect the incidence of acceptance on various scientific facts/etc, it is interesting to see how current problems with certain political parties can spill over into things like acceptance of evolution. The Republicans are facing problems with how to attract people from outside their current pool of voters, but their current membership is becoming increasingly at odds with everyone else. Unless the Republicans can change this spiral of inward isolation and increasing radicalism of ideas, I can expect to see the gap between parties and ideologies only continue to increase, making it harder for the Republicans to maintain appeal outside of their core party members.

Unless the Republicans can change this spiral of inward isolation and increasing radicalism of ideas, I can expect to see the gap between parties and ideologies only continue to increase, making it harder for the Republicans to maintain appeal outside of their core party members.

I don't see where that's a problem. Do we actually need Republicans, or ANY particular political party? Frankly, anyone who allows religious thought to influence public policy should be ignored.

Evangelicals... I just... why is it so hard for them to take some parts of the Bible figuratively?

Because it's a slippery slope from there on out. If God didn't make all of Creation in 7 days, including Adam and Eve, then maybe the entire world didn't completely flood, or maybe the Israelites didn't wander in the desert for 40 years, or maybe Jesus wasn't actually divine, and then... crap.

The thing about Republicans increasingly rejecting evolution is that if the overall number of people that accept it is holding steady, that means the number of people who self-identify as Republicans are dropping, and it's the people who believe in evolution that are the ones who are dropping from the party.

Nothing in science is completely uncontroversial. There are always those that disagree with theories. Quite rightly too as the questioning aspect of science is what permits progression of theories.

The evidence shown here in this article alone is that many disagree with this theory, some of which are likely scientists themselves.

While some aspects of evolution are still debated, pretty much no one with any level of scientific credentials disagrees that evolution happens. It's the bedrock of all of biology. Much like we've said in the climate change thread, it's fine to question basic knowledge of a subject if you have significant evidence that our current understanding is flawed. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which evolution deniers take on "faith" that they need not provide.

Nothing in science is completely uncontroversial. There are always those that disagree with theories. Quite rightly too as the questioning aspect of science is what permits progression of theories.

The evidence shown here in this article alone is that many disagree with this theory, some of which are likely scientists themselves.

In science, theories are pretty much the highest standard of an which an idea can reach. Actual scientists who are debating evolution are no longer debating about whether evolution is true, but what details of how evolution works, the mechanisms, etc. There is a figurative mountain of evidence and peer review literature that you'd have to go against before you can even start questioning evolution's existence.

To summarise, the debate on the existence of evolution occurred about a century ago. Everyone else has moved on since then.

Evangelicals... I just... why is it so hard for them to take some parts of the Bible figuratively?

It's hard to take the first chapter of the book figuratively and then take other parts literally. If it starts out with a made up story without indicating that it's made up why would you buy into the part that says "stop doing that thing you enjoy, it's sin."

My guess is the downward trend does correlate with moderates leaving the party. As an unenrolled voter who leans toward Massachusetts Republican, it disgusts me that I would be solidly liberal in most of the country. The hard shift to the right benefits nobody, not even the base they're pandering to. See how they like it when no one gets into power, solely because the national party name is mud.

Quote:

Quote:

32 percent of the total. 25 percent of all adults believed in some form of theistic evolution, where a deity or deities guided the process, possibly in a way that's indistinguishable from the random mutations that have been observed.

Intelligent randomness? Intelligent statistical noise? How does this even work?

There are a couple schools of thought on that. I'm not sure which is most prevelant, and I'm pretty sure I'm leaving a few out, but there are those who think of the creator as sort of refining the creatures, trying new things and seeing how they work out in the world, and then there's the "helping hand" theory (not a real name, just what I came up with when hashing out personal beliefs) where a creator could theoretically cause a beneficial mutation if it weren't occuring randomly.

Both are obviously very difficult to accept if you don't believe in any sort of higher power, but it's not pseudoscience like intelligent design is, and if more people can believe that evolution is the tool that their creator uses to make and develop life, we'd be better off than we are now. As it stands, it's a good way to pitch the topic to people who believe science and religion must be at odds.

Nothing in science is completely uncontroversial. There are always those that disagree with theories. Quite rightly too as the questioning aspect of science is what permits progression of theories.

The evidence shown here in this article alone is that many disagree with this theory, some of which are likely scientists themselves.

I don't think you will find a serious biologist who will disagree with the basic idea of evolution. There may be disagreements on details or how various branches occurred, but evolution as a mechanism is accepted by all mainstream scientists.

Many may disagree with the theory of evolution, but they are unable to hold an intelligent conversation on the subject with an evolutionary biologist for long, without mentioning the Bible.

Evangelicals... I just... why is it so hard for them to take some parts of the Bible figuratively?

Because it's a slippery slope from there on out. If God didn't make all of Creation in 7 days, including Adam and Eve, then maybe the entire world didn't completely flood, or maybe the Israelites didn't wander in the desert for 40 years, or maybe Jesus wasn't actually divine, and then... crap.

The thing about Republicans increasingly rejecting evolution is that if the overall number of people that accept it is holding steady, that means the number of people who self-identify as Republicans are dropping, and it's the people who believe in evolution that are the ones who are dropping from the party.

It's not a slippery slope at all. A lot of people read the Bible with zero understanding. They don't study the original wording in the original language, nor do they analyze the culture and time period from when those words were written. Nor do they make an honest effort in trying to understanding the meaning and intent of the words that were written. If you want to understand the Bible from the faith perspective then you need to start with faith and reflect on what is most important. If you want to understand the Bible in it's entirety, then you have to look at all aspects. This is why the Roman Catholic Church has scholars that study the Bible and its history.

Unless the Republicans can change this spiral of inward isolation and increasing radicalism of ideas, I can expect to see the gap between parties and ideologies only continue to increase, making it harder for the Republicans to maintain appeal outside of their core party members.

I don't see where that's a problem. Do we actually need Republicans, or ANY particular political party? Frankly, anyone who allows religious thought to influence public policy should be ignored.

In a democracy/republic, you still need decent, meaningful choices. Plus without the constant exposure to some form of opposition and other ideologies, there is the danger that there would be the same spiral towards radicalisation within the dominant political group.

In other words, bad things happen without variety and exposure to many ideologies.

Evangelicals... I just... why is it so hard for them to take some parts of the Bible figuratively?

Most of the evangelicals I know - and I work with one closely - are uneducated. Not stupid. Just uneducated. The lady I work with has 8 kids, thinks Obama is the anti-christ and swears the Bible is infallible. Puhlease.

Unless the Republicans can change this spiral of inward isolation and increasing radicalism of ideas, I can expect to see the gap between parties and ideologies only continue to increase, making it harder for the Republicans to maintain appeal outside of their core party members.

I don't see where that's a problem. Do we actually need Republicans, or ANY particular political party? Frankly, anyone who allows religious thought to influence public policy should be ignored.

Republicans in particular? No. An opposition party of some sort? Yeah, probably. One-party systems breed corruption, and while a vocal minority can mitigate the damage to some extent, especially if they have a wide-reaching media platform, I'd feel better with Goliath vs. Goliath with several Davids on each side keeping them both honest.

I don't see the U.S. becoming a multi-party system if the Democratic Party keeps its current size and the rest of voters split between various other parties

Unless the Republicans can change this spiral of inward isolation and increasing radicalism of ideas, I can expect to see the gap between parties and ideologies only continue to increase, making it harder for the Republicans to maintain appeal outside of their core party members.

I don't see where that's a problem. Do we actually need Republicans, or ANY particular political party? Frankly, anyone who allows religious thought to influence public policy should be ignored.

In a democracy/republic, you still need decent, meaningful choices. Plus without the constant exposure to some form of opposition and other ideologies, there is the danger that there would be the same spiral towards radicalisation within the dominant political group.

In other words, bad things happen without variety and exposure to many ideologies.

We need a solid opposition party and the Republicans are falling down on the job.

The GOP needs to fully implode so that something better can replace it.

Nothing in science is completely uncontroversial. There are always those that disagree with theories. Quite rightly too as the questioning aspect of science is what permits progression of theories.

The evidence shown here in this article alone is that many disagree with this theory, some of which are likely scientists themselves.

True, but irrelevant.

The "completely uncontroversial" bit refers to the broad scientific acceptance of Evolution.

For example, I've met several scientists (including one Biologist*) who didn't believe in Evolution, and not a single one could present a cogent scientific explanation for why the entire framework should be abandoned (and some explanations were downright idiotic, from a scientific perspective). Rather, in every case, it boiled down to an emotional attachment to some religious dogma - e.g. they just "knew" or "believed".

In terms of broad scientific consensus, the only real disagreement is how some elements of evolution work.

Evangelicals... I just... why is it so hard for them to take some parts of the Bible figuratively?

Because it's a slippery slope from there on out. If God didn't make all of Creation in 7 days, including Adam and Eve, then maybe the entire world didn't completely flood, or maybe the Israelites didn't wander in the desert for 40 years, or maybe Jesus wasn't actually divine, and then... crap.

The thing about Republicans increasingly rejecting evolution is that if the overall number of people that accept it is holding steady, that means the number of people who self-identify as Republicans are dropping, and it's the people who believe in evolution that are the ones who are dropping from the party.

It's not a slippery slope at all. A lot of people read the Bible with zero understanding. They don't study the original wording in the original language, nor do they analyze the culture and time period from when those words were written. Nor do they make an honest effort in trying to understanding the meaning and intent of the words that were written. If you want to understand the Bible from the faith perspective then you need to start with faith and reflect on what is most important. If you want to understand the Bible in it's entirety, then you have to look at all aspects. This is why the Roman Catholic Church has scholars that study the Bible and its history.

It's not a slippery slope to you, or me, or the Catholic Church, or rational people. It is to many evangelicals.

It's important to remember that anybody can call themselves a scientist. In fact a lot of people call themselves scientists that probably shouldn't. That's why it's always possible to find a scientist who disagrees to anything. I'm pretty sure that Timecube guy considers himself a scientist, and he doesn't believe that Gravity exists. Now the Law of Gravity is "controversial" and "scientists disagree". "Are we about to fall up? Buy this issue and find out!"

You misunderstand (and I didn't explain it all that well). It's a slippery slope to them. Their faith is based on the idea that the Bible is 100% literal. If any portion of it is considered to be not the literal truth, then it's an attack on the very core of their belief. Allow for parts of it to be open to interpretation (like the Catholic Church does in allowing for scientific knowledge) means that you might as well open up the whole thing to interpretation, and then all hell breaks loose.

Then again, a lot of the same people have no problem quoting one verse to condemn homosexuality, yet completely ignore other verses in the same chapter, so they can eat bacon and sleep with their wives when they have their period. So internal consistency isn't a strong point anyway.

Does anyone have any tips for how to deal with the fact that a full third of our industrious society doesn't believe one of the fundamental principles of a very important branch of science?

Every time I read an article like this, my brain blue screens Windows ME style, and one of these days, I'm worried it's not going recover.

A third of society believing craziness is pretty dang good if you look back past the previous couple hundred years! Historically, one could be put to death for believing other than what the state/church proclaimed. Actually, that's probably more depressing than helpful... I tried.

Nothing in science is completely uncontroversial. There are always those that disagree with theories. Quite rightly too as the questioning aspect of science is what permits progression of theories.

The evidence shown here in this article alone is that many disagree with this theory, some of which are likely scientists themselves.

In science, theories are pretty much the highest standard of an which an idea can reach. Actual scientists who are debating evolution are no longer debating about whether evolution is true, but what details of how evolution works, the mechanisms, etc. There is a figurative mountain of evidence and peer review literature that you'd have to go against before you can even start questioning evolution's existence.

To summarise, the debate on the existence of evolution occurred about a century ago. Everyone else has moved on since then.

My comment was on the all encompassing 'Completely' - meaning without exception part of the opening statement to this article.

The evidence reported here is that 25% of Americans disagree with the theory of evolution in one way or other. Within that pool of people I find it impossible that none of these 75 million people are scientists. Therefore I was stating that it cannot be completely uncontroversial.

Scientists, maybe, but probably not biologists. I seem to remember one of the people who helped out a great deal with The Creation Museum was an astrophysicist. I could see a bible literalist in that position (well, a fundamentalist at least). They would probably think God set down these laws that physical objects must follow, and it's people's job to discover them. Biology isn't really their specialty, no matter what opinions they have on the topic. Unfortunately, people would still give their words (at best) equal weight with someone who DOES study evolution and its mechanisms.

You misunderstand (and I didn't explain it all that well). It's a slippery slope to them. Their faith is based on the idea that the Bible is 100% literal. If any portion of it is considered to be not the literal truth, then it's an attack on the very core of their belief. Allow for parts of it to be open to interpretation (like the Catholic Church does in allowing for scientific knowledge) means that you might as well open up the whole thing to interpretation, and then all hell breaks loose.

Then again, a lot of the same people have no problem quoting one verse to condemn homosexuality, yet completely ignore other verses in the same chapter, so they can eat bacon and sleep with their wives when they have their period. So internal consistency isn't a strong point anyway.

You have to love the cognitive dissonance in believing everything in the Bible is 100% literal truth, but that it's still okay to eat shellfish.

Nothing in science is completely uncontroversial. There are always those that disagree with theories. Quite rightly too as the questioning aspect of science is what permits progression of theories.

The evidence shown here in this article alone is that many disagree with this theory, some of which are likely scientists themselves.

In science, theories are pretty much the highest standard of an which an idea can reach. Actual scientists who are debating evolution are no longer debating about whether evolution is true, but what details of how evolution works, the mechanisms, etc. There is a figurative mountain of evidence and peer review literature that you'd have to go against before you can even start questioning evolution's existence.

To summarise, the debate on the existence of evolution occurred about a century ago. Everyone else has moved on since then.

My comment was on the all encompassing 'Completely' - meaning without exception part of the opening statement to this article.

The evidence reported here is that 25% of Americans disagree with the theory of evolution in one way or other. Within that pool of people I find it impossible that none of these 75 million people are scientists. Therefore I was stating that it cannot be completely uncontroversial.

And my comment was on it was completely uncontroversial due to the fact that the evidence for Evolution is backed by a mountain of evidence and peer review literature spanning about 150 years. This isn't a radical new idea, it has been around for quite a while. Not only that, but there's been ample amount of time to verify it against the natural world around us. Which it has been, repeatedly.

The only controversy that exists on whether evolution is true or not is within the public arena of cultural beliefs. That controversy only really existed in the scientific community about a hundred years ago, and no biologist worth his/her salt takes claims of evolution being false seriously. Not unless a huge amount of evidence is presented to say otherwise.

"completely uncontroversial".....The evidence shown here in this article alone is that many disagree with this theory, some of which are likely scientists themselves.

I don't think you will find a serious biologist who will disagree with the basic idea of evolution. There may be disagreements on details or how various branches occurred, but evolution as a mechanism is accepted by all mainstream scientists.

For those that are unaware of it I present Project Steve....Project Steve is a response to the anti-evolution folks that like to quote about scientists that don't believe in evolution, often referring to science journalists as scientists. Project Steve is a list of scientists who meet two criteria. 1) They believe in the validity of evolution.2) They are named Steve.As Steve's represent ~1% of scientists(Their number, not sure how they arrived at it) each signature on the list represents 100 people. As of mid Number they have 1,288 Steves signed up.

I was going to include a link, seems we are not supposed to. Google Project Steve and click either of the first two links if you're interested.